Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Sports Justice Review (ISJR) applies a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and best practices, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

The journal applies a double-anonymized peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

  • assess the scientific and scholarly quality of submitted manuscripts;
  • evaluate the originality and significance of the research;
  • assess the methodological rigor and appropriateness of the research design;
  • evaluate the validity of data analysis, interpretation, and conclusions;
  • ensure that manuscripts are relevant to the aims and scope of the journal;
  • identify ethical, methodological, or scholarly concerns;
  • provide constructive recommendations to authors for improving their manuscripts; and
  • support the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors in making fair and evidence-based publication decisions.

2. Type of Peer Review

ISJR uses a double-anonymized peer review process.

Under this system:

  • the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers;
  • the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors;
  • reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of manuscripts under review;
  • authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers;
  • review reports are normally not published with the article unless the journal explicitly adopts a different policy for a particular article or special issue.

The journal may disclose reviewer identities after publication only where this has been explicitly agreed upon by the reviewer and the journal.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to ISJR are first examined by the Editorial Office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether they meet the journal's basic requirements.

The initial screening may include:

  • compliance with the journal's aims and scope;
  • compliance with manuscript formatting and submission requirements;
  • assessment of originality and potential plagiarism;
  • assessment of ethical compliance;
  • assessment of the completeness of the manuscript;
  • preliminary evaluation of methodological quality;
  • assessment of potential conflicts of interest; and
  • use of appropriate similarity-checking tools where necessary.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or contain serious ethical or scholarly deficiencies may be rejected without external peer review.

An editorial rejection at this stage does not imply a negative judgment about the authors or their institutions; it indicates that the manuscript is not suitable for further consideration by the journal.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

ISJR normally seeks at least two independent reviewers for each research article. This approach is consistent with recognized open-access journal quality-control practices.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • relevant academic and/or professional expertise;
  • demonstrated research experience in the subject area;
  • publication record where appropriate;
  • methodological competence;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of conflicts of interest; and
  • professional integrity.

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who:

  • are from the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have a close personal or professional relationship with the authors;
  • have a direct academic rivalry with the authors;
  • have recently collaborated with the authors where this may compromise impartiality; or
  • have another relationship that could reasonably affect their objectivity.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers during submission. However, the final selection of reviewers is solely the responsibility of the editors. The journal is not obligated to use author-recommended reviewers.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, independent, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

  • evaluate the manuscript objectively and fairly;
  • assess the originality, significance, and scholarly contribution of the work;
  • evaluate the appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • assess the accuracy and adequacy of data analysis;
  • evaluate whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the findings;
  • identify relevant weaknesses or limitations;
  • identify substantial errors or unsupported claims;
  • identify relevant missing literature where appropriate;
  • provide clear and constructive comments to assist authors in improving the manuscript;
  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process;
  • disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest; and
  • inform the editor if they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, commercial, or other advantage.

These responsibilities are consistent with COPE's ethical guidance, which emphasizes objectivity, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest disclosure, constructive feedback, and timely review.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials provided during the peer review process must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with third parties;
  • disclose the contents of the manuscript to anyone outside the review process;
  • copy or reproduce substantial portions of the manuscript for personal use;
  • use unpublished findings or ideas for their own research; or
  • contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript without permission from the editor.

Any breach of reviewer confidentiality may result in the reviewer being removed from the journal's reviewer database and may be considered a publication-ethics concern.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

A conflict of interest may arise from:

  • financial relationships;
  • personal relationships;
  • institutional affiliations;
  • previous or current collaboration with the authors;
  • academic competition or rivalry;
  • supervisory relationships;
  • professional relationships; or
  • any other circumstance that could reasonably affect the reviewer's impartiality.

If a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Editors are also required to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. Where necessary, an alternative editor or reviewer will be appointed.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and should not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, tables, or other confidential material into generative artificial intelligence systems or publicly accessible AI tools.

Reviewers should not use generative AI systems to independently generate or replace their substantive peer review because of risks relating to confidentiality, bias, inaccurate information, and inadequate assessment.

If AI-assisted tools are permitted for limited language or administrative purposes, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review.

This policy follows current best-practice recommendations concerning the use of generative AI in scholarly peer review.

9. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

A. Originality and Novelty

  • Does the manuscript present original research or a meaningful scholarly contribution?
  • Is the research sufficiently novel in the context of existing literature?

B. Relevance and Significance

  • Is the topic relevant to sports justice, sports law, sports governance, sports policy, dispute resolution, or related areas within the journal's scope?
  • Does the manuscript address a meaningful academic or practical problem?

C. Literature Review

  • Is the relevant literature adequately reviewed?
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate understanding of previous research?
  • Are important and recent references incorporated where appropriate?

D. Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are the methods adequately described?
  • Is the methodology sufficiently rigorous and reproducible?

E. Results and Analysis

  • Are the results presented clearly?
  • Is the analysis appropriate and logically conducted?
  • Are the interpretations supported by the evidence?

F. Discussion and Conclusion

  • Does the discussion appropriately relate the findings to previous research?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the findings?
  • Are the implications and limitations adequately discussed?

G. Academic Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically structured?
  • Is the language clear and academically appropriate?
  • Are tables, figures, citations, and references presented appropriately?

H. Research and Publication Ethics

  • Does the manuscript comply with applicable research ethics requirements?
  • Are ethical approvals, informed consent, data sources, or other relevant declarations provided where applicable?
  • Are there indications of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation, or other forms of research misconduct?

10. Reviewer Recommendation

At the end of the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  1. Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor editorial corrections.
  2. Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally affect the study.
  3. Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
  4. Reject – The manuscript has fundamental problems relating to originality, methodology, relevance, ethics, or scholarly contribution that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

11. Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision is based on the overall quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's relevance to the journal, ethical considerations, and the editors' independent scholarly judgment.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept;
  • Accept with Minor Revision;
  • Revise and Resubmit/Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

The editors are not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation if they determine that the recommendation is inconsistent with the manuscript's quality, the other review reports, or the journal's editorial standards.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may:

  • request clarification from the existing reviewers;
  • invite an additional independent reviewer;
  • conduct an additional editorial assessment; or
  • make a decision based on the available evidence.

12. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript; and
  • a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

Authors should clearly indicate how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. Where an author disagrees with a reviewer, the author should provide a clear academic justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the editor considers this necessary.

13. Reviewer Timelines

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the period specified by the editorial system or editorial office.

If a reviewer requires additional time, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

If a reviewer fails to respond within a reasonable period, the editor may appoint an alternative reviewer in order to prevent unnecessary delays in the editorial process.

ISJR does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period. Any publication-time information provided by the journal should reflect the journal's actual editorial performance rather than an assurance of acceptance or unusually rapid publication. This approach is consistent with the transparency principles for scholarly publishing.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from:

  • a significant factual or procedural error;
  • a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript;
  • a serious conflict of interest;
  • an inappropriate or demonstrably biased review; or
  • a significant procedural violation.

Appeals must provide clear academic or procedural reasons and should not merely disagree with the editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal and may seek an independent editorial or peer assessment where appropriate.

The decision following an appeal is normally final.

15. Complaints and Ethical Concerns

ISJR takes allegations concerning peer review and publication ethics seriously.

Concerns may include:

  • reviewer misconduct;
  • breaches of confidentiality;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication or falsification of data;
  • citation manipulation;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • authorship disputes; or
  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

The journal will investigate such concerns in accordance with applicable publication-ethics principles and COPE guidance.

Where necessary, the journal may request additional information or clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties.

16. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity of manuscripts.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • the author's nationality;
  • ethnicity;
  • gender;
  • religion;
  • political beliefs;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • academic seniority;
  • personal relationships; or
  • commercial or other inappropriate interests.

The journal is committed to fair, objective, and non-discriminatory editorial decision-making. This principle is consistent with the international Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

17. Special Issues and Other Article Types

Special issues, review articles, conceptual papers, case studies, commentaries, editorials, and other article types may be subject to different editorial procedures where scientifically justified.

Any deviation from the journal's standard peer review process will be clearly identified and transparently communicated to authors and readers.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, substantive scholarly research published by ISJR will undergo external peer review.

18. Record Keeping

The journal maintains appropriate records of the peer review and editorial decision-making process, including reviewer invitations, review reports, editorial decisions, revisions, and relevant correspondence.

These records are kept confidential and may be used for quality assurance, editorial evaluation, publication-ethics investigations, and journal indexing or audit requirements.

19. Commitment to Ethical Peer Review

ISJR considers peer review to be a fundamental component of scholarly communication. The journal is committed to maintaining a peer review system that is:

  • Independent;
  • Fair;
  • Confidential;
  • Constructive;
  • Transparent in procedure;
  • Free from inappropriate conflicts of interest; and
  • Consistent with international publication-ethics standards.

The journal may periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research ethics, peer review practices, and the recommendations of relevant international organizations.